The argument you keep trying to ignore.
That Muschamp was a failure, but here we are and there are legitimate arguments that Muschamp was better than Beamer. In fact, Beamer is going to need to win 6 of the next 9 games just to be equal to Muschamp.
You're falling for the same nonsense Muschamp spewed after his first two years.
"We've had as many wins as any coach in South Carolina history our first two seasons." ~ Will Muschamp
The difference is in the details.
First off, I think we can both agree that Beamer had a far better 2nd season that Muschamp did. This speaks to the trajectory of the program and that's as far as we can make the comparison.
Beamer beat two top ten teams back to back and also a Top 20 team. Muschamp lost both of his games in 2017 to ranked opponents. Muschamp got crushed at home to Clemson. Beamer beat Clemson on the road for the first time since before Will Muschamp arrived on USC's campus.
Now let's take a look at Muschamp's first season as well to highlight how his "just add up the wins" comment meant little to nothing. Look at these margins of victory and the level of competition.
2016 Schedule Wins:
UMASS (2-10) - Won by 8pts
Western Carolina (2-9) - Won by 12 pts
East Carolina (3-9) - Won by 5pts
Vandy (6-7) - Won by 3pts
Missouri (4-8) - Won by 10pts
UT (9-4) - Won by 3pts
{And he was demolished by our rival at Williams Brice: Clemson 56 USC: 7}
Muschamp was the definition of a paper tiger.
Muschamp's teams also aged like a bad wine. There was no player development whatsoever. The idea that Beamer is going to be worse from this point forward is unlikely.
Finally, a point that is overlooked but is huge:
Muschamp's key players weren't getting plucked by teams with deeper pockets.
What would the UNC and UGA games have looked like with Bell and Lloyd - two of our best players from last season?
